It is clear that you and I speak to each other in different tones. Yours
is one of derision and insult masked in an 'intellectual' snobbery... while
I have generally refrained from being abrasive to the degree which you seem
to favour. I do not know if this is some sort of ploy you use in an attempt
to 'dismantle' any opposition or opinion held that is differnt from yours.
However I must say that while your approach has the veneer of a polished,
amateurish 'William F. Buckley' style, it does not upon close inspection, seem
one of pure rationale.
>
> Dear Don;
> I would love to discuss the statements you made in your recent rant
> point by point, however as I said before the purpose of this forum is
> not the discussion of religion or spiritualism.
Sir, if we are to resolve this rapidly and get back to meaningful dialogue that
is productive and generally helpful to those around us, let us do so.
Shall we not mince words so as to expedite this matter? First off, the fact
is that you would not 'love' to discuss this matter further at all in any shape,
way or form. You only seek to make a fool out of me and render
my thoughts on this issue impotent.
I have not disagreed with you in regards to keeping religion out of this forum.
However I demand that you keep the playing field equal. If you insist that religion
be kept out, then by all means I agree. Keep it out! But do not insist that alternative
religions no matter how cleverly masked be kept within the forum to the exclusion of
other spiritual ideologies. This means humanism, which is often but not always the
defacto religionist view of government funded institutionalized 'scientists' and it
also means witchcraft. If you have no intent of complying with what you are demanding
from me then simply state clearly that you're philosophy will remain supreme and mine
can take a back seat.
>You can verify this for
> yourself by examining the documented rules. I did not write those rules
> so don't blame me. But I will answer some of your statements.
I have no need for verification as I have already stated that I am more than
eager to comply with rules that are applied equally to all members.
>
> I wrote:
> snip...
> >>This forum is about science not religion.
>
> You wrote:
> snip...
> > yes, that is what I had thought initially, which is why I was surprised to see
> > what seemed to be to be religious ideas of wicca or witchcraft being
> > talked about as 'science'. Gerald Berry, how many actual 'scientitsts'
> > would see the pyramid device as scientific?
>
> Please use the correct names of those who you are addressing. I'm sure
> that Mr. Berry does not deserve to be the subject of your raving.
Yes, mentioning John Berry's name in context with yours was my mistake,
in actual fact it was a typo and my express apologies to both of you for any
discomfort it may have caused either of you. As for my 'raving' I see
you are still using mud slinging to get your point across.
>With regard to scientists, the correct scientific approach to this issue
> would be to examine the evidence before making a judgement. First one
>....That he uses a natural phenomenon for constructive
> purposes does not make him a practitioner of witchcraft. That is YOUR
> label. We still do not understand the invisible force of gravity but we
> certainly make good use of it. Virtually every advance in science to
> this date was at one time, or would have been, considered witchcraft or
> sorcery by the ignorant and those fearful of the unknown.
Firstly, I do not require an elementary introduction to the impirical
method. Secondly it has not been established clearly by anyone on here
including Jerry that he is using a purely natural phenomenon. As to
your statement regarding the suppression of scientific progress by
ignorant religionists, you erroneously assume that my particular beliefs
may be categroically lumped into a group of medievalisitic inquisitors.
Since you have not taken the time to even make simple inquiry as to what
my beliefs are and my reasons for having them you have made an obvious
mistake in logic and reasoning. You assume with out knowledge of the facts.
Why does this not surprise me? Unlike yourself I have not shown an outright
closed mind regarding this issue. My stance has been one of inquiry and caution.
I have said that this scenario 'seems' like something to me and that without
further relevant data to assess, I must proceed with caution.
>
> > How many wiccans would see this
> > description as being one to which they would gleefully and intimately relate?
>
> Irrelevant. Some groups worship nature but that does not make the study
> of nature the exclusive domain of that group.
No. It is only irrelvant to you... as for other groups studying nature... this
is simply a clumsy effort using circular reasoning to diffuse my concerns.
>
> > So if your right to expression stands
> > and mine is not allowed, where is the freedom? It sounds to me like intolerance
> > and clever manipulation of ideologies to meet the agenda of those who wish to
> > propogate same and not an open forum of simply 'science and discovery' at all.
> ...
> > Yes I know, you've stated we may only discuss appropriate religious views,
> > yours. Anything else just won't do.
>
> So, you think you are rather clever in that if you declare Science to be
> 'my' religion then therefore, and conversely, anything goes as far as
> YOU using this forum for your religious soapbox.
Twisting my words about to make me seem like some feeble, anachronistic religious
fool might work on some of your past prey...but I've been down this road far to many
times before. Bullying and intimidation were tools of the inquisitors... when
shall I recant... what hot poker can you find next to prod me with? I do not
think myself 'clever", apparently according to you I am ignorant and you are the
intellectual superior who has deigned to inform me of the way things really are.
I did not say 'science' was your religion. I indicated you were speaking with
the tone of a humanist using science as a cover. Science as I percieve it, is neutral.
But humanists often disguise their religion using a veneer of science. Man is not
God in my opinion. You are not the centre of the universe. To speak of witchcraft
or humanism as science is to rant and rave your particular brand of religion.
>
> > Interesting, and yet here you are preaching to me. You say I should not object
> > to the study of certain things, I should shut up and go away.
>
> You don't have to go away but it wouldn't bother me if you do shut up.
Unlike you, it would bother me were I to cause you to shut up. While I may disagree
with your perspective, I honour your right to express it. But then perhaps
intolerance is a trademark of the humanist?
> > but I should be removed entirely. Perhaps if we lived in Rome you could avoid
> > annoyances such as me by simply tossing me to the lions, that would be so
> > much more convenient for you I imagine.
>
> Now that is a tempting thought, but it is my understanding that this
> practice is no longer conducted in Rome.
Well at least your honest in displaying your intolerant belligerence.
> > All that seemed to occur was for Jerry to confirm that sure it could be construed as
> > witch craft, but thats ok because labels don't mean anything. Gerald, do you think
> > labels mean anything? Such as "superstitious dogma propounded by certain ignorant
> > misguided religions of the dark ages."
>
> Yes, I think that accurately sums up your expressed attitude.
And you have a right to your opinion as I do to mine...except I would not rather
get into an 'insult' match while you appear to have no compunction about doing so.
This seems like an 'ignorant attitude' to me. Note, I did not call you ignorant,
rather your action. There is a difference between the two. Perhaps you never
learned to play nice in the sandbox as a child?
> You wrote:
> > I fail to see how exactly you have determined that my fears are those
> > of an enslaved and superstitious mind.
> and...
> > I did not simply wake up one
> > day and blindly let some old and out of touch priest ram regurtitated
> > orthodoxy down my throat and then say to him, 'thank you suh, may I have another?'
> and...
> > Not that any one is likely to care, but the Bible states quite clearly that
> > 'divining' and spiritualism is wrong, case closed for me.
>
> I too rest my case.
This last statement was obviously a tongue in cheek attempt... but I'm afraid
it seems like you've only convicted yourself with what you accuse me of. Ignorance.
> Cheers!
Warm regards, and let us end this diatribe now and get back to things which
are more productive.
Don
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@dallastexas.net>
> with the body text: leave keelynet
> WWW based join and leave forms and KeelyNet list archives
> are at http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/
> -------------------------------------------------------------